Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching

Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching
M. Novrianto
State Islamic University (Pekanbaru, Indonesia)

This paper aims at emphasizing the importance of language learning strategies in foreign language learning and teaching. It summarizes the background of language learning strategies, defines the concept of a language learning strategy, and outlines the taxonomy of language learning strategies proposed by several researchers. It also takes into account the teacher's role in strategy training and poses questions for further research on language learning strategies.
Introduction
There has been a prominent shift within the field of language learning and teaching over the last twenty years with greater emphasis being put on learners and learning rather than on teachers and teaching. In parallel to this new shift of interest, how learners process new information and what kinds of strategies they employ to understand, learn or remember the information has been the primary concern of the researchers dealing with the area of foreign language learning. This paper provides the background of language learning strategies, gives various definitions and taxonomies of language learning strategies presented by several researchers. It also stresses the importance of language learning strategies for foreign language learning and the teacher's role in strategy training. In the last section, the paper exhibits some questions for further research on language learning strategies.
Background of Language Learning Strategies
Research into language learning strategies began in the 1960s. Particularly, developments in cognitive psychology influenced much of the research done on language learning strategies (Wiliams and Burden 1997:149). In most of the research on language learning strategies, the primary concern has been on "identifying what good language learners report they do to learn a second or foreign language, or, in some cases, are observed doing while learning a second or foreign language." (Rubin and Wenden 1987:19). In 1966, Aaron Carton published his study entitled The Method of Inference in Foreign Language Study, which was the first attempt on learner strategies.After Carton, in 1971, Rubin started doing research focussing on the strategies of successful learners and stated that, once identified, such strategies could be made available to less successful learners. Rubin (1975) classified strategies in terms of processes contributing directly or indirectly to language learning. Wong-Fillmore (1976), Tarone (1977), Naiman et al. (1978), Bialystok (1979), Cohen and Aphek (1981), Wenden (1982), Chamot and O'Malley (1987), Politzer and McGroarty (1985), Conti and Kolsody (1997), and many others studied strategies used by language learners during the process of foreign language learning.
Definition of a Language Learning Strategy
The term language learning strategy has been defined by many researchers. Wenden and Rubin (1987:19) define learning strategies as "... any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information." Richards and Platt (1992:209) state that learning strategies are "intentional behavior and thoughts used by learners during learning so as to better help them understand, learn, or remember new information." Faerch Claus and Casper (1983:67) stress that a learning strategy is "an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language." According to Stern (1992:261), "the concept of learning strategy is dependent on the assumption that learners consciously engage in activities to achieve certain goals and learning strategies can be regarded as broadly conceived intentional directions and learning techniques." All language learners use language learning strategies either consciously or unconsciously when processing new information and performing tasks in the language classroom. Since language classroom is like a problem-solving environment in which language learners are likely to face new input and difficult tasks given by their instructors, learners' attempts to find the quickest or easiest way to do what is required, that is, using language learning strategies is inescapable.
Language learning strategies language learners use during the act of processing the new information and performing tasks have been identified and described by researchers. In the following section, how various researchers have categorized language learning strategies will be shortly summarized:
Taxonomy of Language Learning Strategies
Language Learning Strategies have been classified by many scholars (Wenden and Rubin 1987; O'Malley et al. 1985; Oxford 1990; Stern 1992; Ellis 1994, etc. ). However, most of these attempts to classify language learning strategies reflect more or less the same categorizations of language learning strategies without any radical changes. In what follows, Rubin's (1987), Oxford's (1990), O'Malley's (1985), and Stern's (1992) taxonomies of language learning strategies will be handled:
Rubin's (1987) Classification of Language Learning Strategies
Rubin, who pionered much of the work in the field of strategies, makes the distinction between strategies contributing directly to learning and those contributing indirectly to learning. According to Rubin, there are three types of strategies used by learners that contribute directly or indirectly to language learning. These are:
• Learning Strategies
• Communication Strategies
• Social Strategies
Learning Strategies
They are of two main types, being the strategies contributing directly to the development of the language system constructed by the learner:
• Cognitive Learning Strategies
• Metacognitive Learning Strategies
Cognitive Learning Strategies
They refer to the steps or operations used in learning or problem-solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials. Rubin identified 6 main cognitive learning strategies contributing directly to language learning:
• Clarification / Verification
• Guessing / Inductive Inferencing
• Deductive Reasoning
• Practice
• Memorization
• Monitoring
Metacognitive Learning Strategies
These strategies are used to oversee, regulate or self-direct language learning. They involve various processes as planning, prioritising, setting goals, and self-management.
Communication Strategies
They are less directly related to language learning since their focus is on the process of participating in a conversation and getting meaning across or clarifying what the speaker intended. Communication strategies are used by speakers when faced with some difficulty due to the fact that their communication ends outrun their communication means or when confronted with misunderstanding by a co-speaker.
Social Strategies
Social strategies are those activities learners engage in which afford them opportunities to be exposed to and practise their knowledge. Although these strategies provide exposure to the target language, they contribute indirectly to learning since they do not lead directly to the obtaining, storing, retrieving, and using of language (Rubin and Wenden 1987:23-27).
Oxford's (1990) Classification of Language Learning Strategies
Oxford (1990:9) sees the aim of language learning strategies as being oriented towards the development of communicative competence. Oxford divides language learning strategies into two main classes, direct and indirect, which are further subdivided into 6 groups. In Oxford's system, metacognitive strategies help learners to regulate their learning. Affective strategies are concerned with the learner's emotional requirements such as confidence, while social strategies lead to increased interaction with the target language. Cognitive strategies are the mental strategies learners use to make sense of their learning, memory strategies are those used for storage of information, and compensation strategies help learners to overcome knowledge gaps to continue the communication. Oxford's (1990:17) taxonomy of language learning strategies is shown in the following :
• DIRECT STRATEGIES
o I. Memory
 A. Creating mental linkages
 B. Applying images and sounds
 C. Reviewing well
 D. Employing action
o II.Cognitive
 A. Practising
 B. Receiving and sending messages strategies
 C. Analysing and reasoning
 D. Creating structure for input and output
o III. Compensation strategies
 A. Guessing intelligently
 B. Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing
• INDIRECT STRATEGIES
o I. Metacognitive Strategies
 A. Centering your learning
 B. Arranging and planning your learning
 C. Evaluating your learning
o II. Affective Strategies
 A. Lowering your anxiety
 B. Encouraging yourself
 C. Taking your emotional temperature
o III. Social Strategies
 A. Asking questions
 B. Cooperating with others
 C. Emphathising with others

It can be seen that much of the recent work in this area has been underpinned by a broad concept of language learning strategies that goes beyond cognitive processes to include social and communicative strategies.
O'Malley's (1985) Classification of Language Learning Strategies
O'Malley et al. (1985:582-584) divide language learning strategies into three main subcategories:
• Metacognitive Strategies
• Cognitive Strategies
• Socioaffective Strategies
Metacognitive Strategies
It can be stated that metacognitive is a term to express executive function, strategies which require planning for learning, thinking about the learning process as it is taking place, monitoring of one's production or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an activity is completed. Among the main metacognitive strategies, it is possible to include advance organizers, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, functional planning, self-monitoring, delayed production, self-evaluation.
Cognitive Strategies
Cognitive strategies are more limited to specific learning tasks and they involve more direct manipulation of the learning material itself. Repetition, resourcing, translation, grouping, note taking, deduction, recombination, imagery, auditory representation, key word, contextualization, elaboration, transfer, inferencing are among the most important cognitive strategies.
Socioaffective Strategies
As to the socioaffective strategies, it can be stated that they are related with social-mediating activity and transacting with others. Cooperation and question for clarification are the main socioaffective strategies (Brown 1987:93-94).
Stern's (1992) Classification of Language Learning Strategies
According to Stern (1992:262-266), there are five main language learning strategies. These are as follows:
• Management and Planning Strategies
• Cognitive Strategies
• Communicative - Experiential Strategies
• Interpersonal Strategies
• Affective Strategies
Management and Planning Strategies
These strategies are related with the learner's intention to direct his own learning. A learner can take charge of the development of his own programme when he is helped by a teacher whose role is that of an adviser and resource person. That is to say that the learner must:
• decide what commitment to make to language learning
• set himself reasonable goals
• decide on an appropriate methodology, select appropriate resources, and monitor progress,
• evaluate his achievement in the light of previously determined goals and expectations ( Stern 1992:263).
Cognitive Strategies
They are steps or operations used in learning or problem solving that require direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials. In the following, some of the cognitive strategies are exhibited:
• Clarification / Verification
• Guessing / Inductive Inferencing
• Deductive Reasoning
• Practice
• Memorization
• Monitoring
Communicative - Experiential Strategies
Communication strategies, such as circumlocution, gesturing, paraphrase, or asking for repetition and explanation are techniques used by learners so as to keep a conversation going. The purpose of using these techniques is to avoid interrupting the flow of communication (Stern 1992:265).
Interpersonal Strategies
They should monitor their own development and evaluate their own performance. Learners should contact with native speakers and cooperate with them. Learners must become acquainted with the target culture (Stern 1992: 265-266).
Affective Strategies
It is evident that good language learners employ distinct affective strategies. Language learning can be frustrating in some cases. In some cases, the feeling of strangeness can be evoked by the foreign language. In some other cases, L2 learners may have negative feelings about native speakers of L2. Good language learners are more or less conscious of these emotional problems. Good language learners try to create associations of positive affect towards the foreign language and its speakers as well as towards the learning activities involved. Learning training can help students to face up to the emotional difficulties and to overcome them by drawing attention to the potential frustrations or pointing them out as they arise (Stern 1992:266).
Importance of Language Learning Strategies in Language Learning and Teaching
Since the amount of information to be processed by language learners is high in language classroom, learners use different language learning strategies in performing the tasks and processing the new input they face. Language learning strategies are good indicators of how learners approach tasks or problems encountered during the process of language learning. In other words, language learning strategies, while nonobservable or unconsciously used in some cases, give language teachers valuable clues about how their students assess the situation, plan, select appropriate skills so as to understand, learn, or remember new input presented in the language classroom. According to Fedderholdt (1997:1), the language learner capable of using a wide variety of language learning strategies appropriately can improve his language skills in a better way. Metacognitive strategies improve organization of learning time, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. Cognitive strategies include using previous knowledge to help solve new problems. Socioaffective strategies include asking native speakers to correct their pronunciation, or asking a classmate to work together on a particular language problem. Developing skills in three areas, such as metacognitive, cognitive, and socioaffective can help the language learner build up learner independence and autonomy whereby he can take control of his own learning. Lessard-Clouston (1997:3) states that language learning strategies contribute to the development of the communicative competence of the students. Being a broad concept, language learning strategies are used to refer to all strategies foreign language learners use in learning the target language and communication strategies are one type of language learning strategies. It follows from this that language teachers aiming at developing the communicative competence of the students and language learning should be familiar with language learning strategies. As Oxford (1990:1) states, language learning strategies "... are especially important for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed movement, which is essential for developing communicative competence." Besides developing the communicative competence of the students, teachers who train students to use language learning strategies can help them become better language learners. Helping students understand good language learning strategies and training them to develop and use such good language learning strategies can be considered to be the appreciated characteristics of a good language teacher (Lessard-Clouston 1997:3). Research into the good language learning strategies revealed a number of positive strategies so that such strategies could also be used by bad language learners trying to become more successful in language learning. However, there is always the possibility that bad language learners can also use the same good language learning strategies while becoming unsuccessful owing to some other reasons. At this point, it should be strongly stressed that using the same good language learning strategies does not guarantee that bad learners will also become successful in language learning since other factors may also play role in success.
The Teacher's Role in Strategy Training
The language teacher aiming at training his students in using language learning strategies should learn about the students, their interests, motivations, and learning styles. The teacher can learn what language learning strategies students already appear to be using, observing their behavior in class. Do they ask for clarification, verification or correction? Do they cooperate with their peers or seem to have much contact outside of class with proficient foreign language users? Besides observing their behavior in class, the teacher can prepare a short questionnaire so that students can fill in at the beginning of a course to describe themselves and their language learning. Thus, the teacher can learn the purpose of their learning a language, their favorite / least favorite kinds of class activities, and the reason why they learn a language. The teacher can have adequate knowledge about the students, their goals, motivations, language learning strategies, and their understanding of the course to be taught (Lessard-Clouston 1997:5). It is a fact that each learner within the same classroom may have different learning styles and varied awareness of the use of strategies. The teacher cannot attribute importance to only one group and support the analytical approach or only give input by using the auditory mode. The language teacher should, therefore, provide a wide range of learning strategies in order to meet the needs and expectations of his students possessing different learning styles, motivations, strategy preferences, etc. Therefore, it can be stated that the most important teacher role in foreign language teaching is the provision of a range of tasks to match varied learning styles (Hall 1997:4).
In addition to the students, the language teacher should also analyze his textbook to see whether the textbook already includes language learning strategies or language learning strategies training. The language teacher should look for new texts or other teaching materials if language learning strategies are not already included within his materials.
The language teacher should also study his own teaching method and overall classroom style. Analyzing his lesson plans, the language teacher can determine whether his lesson plans give learners chance to use a variety of learning styles and strategies or not. The teacher can see whether his teaching allows learners to approach the task at hand in different ways or not. The language teacher can also be aware of whether his strategy training is implicit, explicit, or both. It should be emphasized that questioning himself about what he plans to do before each lesson and evaluating his lesson plan after the lesson in terms of strategy training, the teacher can become better prepared to focus on language learning strategies and strategy training during the process of his teaching (Lessard-Clouston 1997:5).
Conclusion
Language learning strategies, being specific actions, behaviors, tactics, or techniques, facilitate the learning of the target language by the language learner. All language learners, needless to say, use language learning strategies in the learning process. Since the factors like age, gender, personality, motivation, self-concept, life-experience, learning style, excitement, anxiety, etc. affect the way in which language learners learn the target language, it is not reasonable to support the idea that all language learners use the same good language learning strategies or should be trained in using and developing the same strategies to become successful learners. As Lessard-Clouston (1997:8) mentions, studies to be done on language learning strategies and strategy training should move beyond descriptive taxonomies of language learning strategies and attempt to seek for answers to a wide range of questions, such as: What types of language learning strategies appear to work best with what learners in which contexts? Does language learning strategies or language learning strategies training transfer easily between L2 and FL contexts? What is the role of language proficiency in language learning strategies use and training? How long does it take to train specific learners in certain language learning strategies? How can one best assess and measure success in language learning strategies use or training? Are certain language learning strategies learned more easily in classroom and non-classroom contexts? What language learning strategies should be taught at different proficiency levels? It can be expected that answers to the above mentioned and many other questions from research in a variety of settings will pave the way for building the theory that seems necessary for more language learning strategies work to be relevant to current L2 / FL teaching practice.
References
1. BROWN, Douglas. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
2. LESSARD-CLOUSTON, Michael. 1997. "Language Learning Strategies: An Overview for L2 Teachers" on The Internet TESL Journal
3. FAERCH, Claus and G. KASPER. 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.
4. FEDDERHOLDT, Karen. 1997. "Using Diaries to Develop Language Learning Strategies" on Internet
5. HALL, Stephen. 1997. "Language Learning Strategies: from the ideals to classroom tasks". Language and Communication Division, Temasek Polytechnic on Internet
6. O'MALLEY, J. Michael, CHAMOT, Anna U., STEWNER-MANZANARES, Gloria, RUSSO, Rocco P., and L. KUPPER. 1985. "Learning Strategy Applications with Students of English as a Second Language" in TESOL Quarterly 19: 557-584.
7. OXFORD, Rebecca. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
8. RICHARDS, J. and John PLATT. 1992. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.
9. STERN, H.H. 1992. Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
10. WENDEN, A. and Joan RUBIN. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
11. WILLIAMS, M. and Robert L. BURDEN. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: CUP.

________________________________________

________________________________________
A Language Learning Strategy for Intensive Language Program Students
Harold F. Schiffman
Academic Director, Penn Language Center
Luce Professor of Language Learning
South Asia Regional Studies
University of Pennsylvania
Recent work in the analysis of successful language learning/teaching frameworks recognizes the need for all parties in the process to have a clear set of goals. Furthermore, these goals must intermesh with each other to form an overall Language Learning Framework. Otherwise at some point the framework will fail, and learning will not be enhanced.
Experience as Language Director of the Southeast Asia Summer Studies (SEASSI) Institute at the University of Washington in Seattle during 1992-93 convinced me of the need for all participants in the Language Learning Framework to be explicit about their responsibilities and expectations. For students, what seems to be most needed is a way for each student to develop and declare a Language Learning Strategy. This strategy will be based on the needs of the particular student based on the language learning situation s/he finds him/herself in. Some students may find that they need to spend four hours per day doing homework, while others may need six, and others only two. Students must assume, however, that their success or failure in the program depends in large part on the effort they put in outside of class, rather than exclusively on what happens in the four hours of morning classwork. Here are some ideas I have pulled together in consultation with other experienced language teachers
Elements of a Language Learning Strategy
Some factors enhance language learning, and other things detract from it. The intensive languge program student who spends four hours a day sailing on Union Bay, flipping hamburgers at Burger King, writing her M.A. thesis, or watching MTV does not have a strategy that will enhance language learning. We can't tell you you can't do these things, but we do know that four hours devoted to non-program activities during an intensive language course will not enhance your learning of the target language. Furthermore, we do know that some or all of the following will help rather than hinder learning.
1. Time Management. Probably the most important element of a successful LLS is how students manage their time, especially the time spent outside the classroom. Scheduling time for the various elements that will be necessary to perform well in class may take some experimentation, but there are a number of rules of thumb.
1. Intensive Language Classes are Intense. Remember that when you study a language in a regular school year, you usually have 50 minutes of class time followed by 23 hours of other activity (and sleep) before the next class. You may spend an hour or more doing homework, listening to tapes, etc. for that one hour of class. Buf if you have four hours of class per day, you are going to have to do at least four hours of homework per day, but maybe more. And remember that a day of class missed in a regular program is only an hour missed, but a day missed in an intensive class is the equivalent of a week. Can you afford to take long weekends camping in the Poconos?
2. The dreaded ``M" word. Memorization is necessary in any language program---vocabulary, grammatical forms, phrases, whole conversations, paradigms, tones and tone rules---must be to some extent committed to memory. You need to work out the system that works best for you. Some students find that memorization 15 minutes a day, at four different times spread throughout the day is more effective than devoting 1 hour of undivided time. Some students find it works better to work with another student. Others make notes and paste them on their mirror. Find what works for you, and do it.
3. Make flashcards and carry them around with you. Write new vocabulary down that you hear in class directly on your cards. Alphabetize them and date them. Test yourself with them constantly, but make sure you do it honestly---write down your answers, rather than giving yourself the benefit of the doubt. Or, work with another student on a regular basis, testing each other. Keep a record of the words you have trouble with, put that card aside, and test yourself again later.
4. Break up your homework time into reasonable chunks; don't make the mistake of thinking that just sitting for four hours will bring you to a point where you can then declare yourself finished. Break for a snack, some exercise, whatever, and then come back.
5. Read ahead in the book---look at what's coming. Sometimes it makes it clearer why the material in Lesson 5 is there---it's to provide a transition to material in Lesson 6. And don't forget to review older material on a regular basis; don't wait for the teacher to remind you. Good teaching materials and good teachers will deal with this automatically, but it doesn't hurt to do it yourself.
6. Listening to tapes. If there are tapes that accompany the material, plan to spend a goodly amount of time listening to them, either in the Language Lab, or on your Walkman. Play them while you're doing something else, like taking a walk. Play them several times a day, rather than just once. You may be required to memorize dialogues on the tapes; schedule this in.
7. Organization. Time management during an intensive language class may require more organization than you have ever needed in your life, but if you are doing it, and doing well in class, it will be a success. You may feel that you are `not the kind of person' to schedule your time this way; if not, show us another plan. Intensive language programs are not `feel good' programs; our responsibility is to teach the language, not organize a pleasant summer.
8. Keep a log of time spent, actual time spent, at various of these activities. Then if your time management plan isn't working, we need to know about it. If you're having a problem keeping up with other students, we can't diagnose it unless we know what you're doing.
2. The (pro-)Active Approach. Review the work performed in class each day. Look at the notes you took. Is it all clear to you? Could you explain any or all of what was said to someone else? Could you transcribe your notes (e.g. type them up) in a coherent manner that will make sense to you later? If you can't, maybe you need to ask a teacher or the Coordinator about whatever it is that doesn't make complete sense.
3. When someone else is speaking or being drilled in class, how do you use the time? Do you daydream, look out the window, talk to your neighbor? Or do you prepare for the eventuality that each time anyone is called on, you should be able to provide the answer? In other words, are you constantly seeking answers to questions, or are you waiting for someone else to take responsibility for your learning?
4. Take advantage of every opportunity to use the language you are learning. Make a pact to only speak the target language with certain individuals; go to every movie you can, every field trip; use your breaks to reinforce learning rather than let it slide.
5. Use of Class Time. Take advantage of the teacher's office hours, and bring any question or uncertainty to this hour, rather than using valuable class time to waylay the teacher into long discussions of grammar. You will soon discover which teachers would rather discuss culture, or grammar, than to drill the class and make people talk. One strategy that does not enhance language learning is to take advantage of this propensity and get a little vacation from the constant drilling.
6. Language Learning and the Non-traditional Learner. Many of us, myself included, find that as we get older, certain kinds of learning become more difficult. Memorization is one of these. Another problem may be with our reaction time; it seems to take a little longer for the nickle to drop. And maybe our hearing, which has been perfectly adequate up to now for our mother tongue, doesn't seem to hear those fine distinctions in spoken Klingon. Older students may have to face issues of loss of self-esteem, (what, me fail?) and how to compensate for this. On the other hand, older learners usually are clear about why they want to learn and may have very practical uses to which they intend to put the language. (And they usually are better time managers.)
7. Exercise, a healthy diet, entertainment, and adequate sleep are part of a good strategy, and should not be neglected in a daily schedule. They should just not be allowed to dominate the schedule, or receive first priority.
If the above sounds like an absolutely awful grind, maybe you need to reassess why you want to study this language. Intensive language classes have been referred to by some as `half summer camp, half boot camp.' There can be mood swings---usually the first few weeks are full of energy, then come the doldrums. Enthusiasm may revive, only to flag two weeks later. Usually intensive program ends on a high note, but the road may be rocky. Be prepared for these variations, and don't be thrown by them. To help you think about what time you have at your disposal, start your planning with the following grid:
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
8:00--9:00
9:00--10:00
10:00--11:00
11:00--noon
Noon-1 p.m. lunch lunch lunch lunch lunch lunch lunch
1:00--2:00
2:00--3:00
3:00--4:00
4:00--5:00
5:00--6:00
6:00--7:00 dinner dinner dinner dinner dinner dinner
7:00--8:00
8:00--9:00
9:00--10:00
Fill in the blanks with your current schedule--how many hours in class, how many hours eating, enjoying recreation, exercising, doing homework, watching television. Then make some decisions: what could be done differently? Is there something that could be cut out, or left until the end of the day? You decide; you're the manager of your time, or should be.

Language Learning Strategies: Theory and Research
by Carol Griffiths
School of Foundations Studies
AIS St Helens, Auckland, New Zealand
Occasional Paper No. 1
February 2004
Abstract
What is considered by many to be the pioneering work in the field of language
learning strategies was carried out in the mid seventies by researchers such as Rubin
(1975) and Stern (1975). Although nearly a quarter of a century has passed since then,
the language learning strategy field continues to be characterised by “no consensus”
(O’Malley et al, 1985, p.22) and the concept of language learning strategies itself
remains “fuzzy” (Ellis, 1994, p.529). This article attempts to clarify some of the
fuzziness by trying first of all to establish basic terminology and going on to discuss
definition and classification of language learning strategies. The development of
language learning strategy theory and how it fits into the framework of contemporary
language teaching and learning for students who speak other languages is examined,
and research on language learning strategies to date is reviewed.
1
Introduction
As Wenden (1985) reminds us, there is an old proverb which states: “Give a man a
fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime”. Applied
to the language teaching and learning field, this proverb might be interpreted to mean
that if students are provided with answers, the immediate problem is solved. But if
they are taught the strategies to work out the answers for themselves, they are
empowered to manage their own learning.
Since the pioneering work carried out in the mid-seventies (for instance by Rubin,
1975; Stern, 1975) there has been an awareness that language learning strategies have
the potential to be “an extremely powerful learning tool” (O’Malley, Chamot,
Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, and Russo, 1985, p.43). In spite of this awareness, and
in spite of much useful and interesting work having been carried out in the
intervening years (nearly a quarter of a century), the language learning strategy field
continues to be characterised by “confusion” and “no consensus” (O’Malley et al,
1985, p.22) while Ellis (1994, p.529) comments that the language learning strategy
concept remains “fuzzy”.
Considering the potential usefulness of language learning strategies as a language
teaching and learning tool, I would like to try to put this rather fuzzy picture in to
some sort of perspective. I will begin by looking at the basic terminology, the
frequently conflicting use of which does nothing to aid consensus. I will then discuss
definition and classification of language learning strategies, and go on from there to
look at language learning strategies from a theoretical perspective before reviewing
language learning strategy research to date.
Terminology
Before attempting to define and classify language learning strategies as used by
speakers of other languages, I would like first of all to provide a rationale for the
choice of the term strategy. Although used by many prominent writers (such as Rubin,
1975; O’Malley et al, 1985; Oxford, 1990) the term strategy is not without its
controversy. Consensus is not assisted by some writers’ use of conflicting
terminology such as learning behaviours (Wesche, 1977; Politzer and McGroarty,
1985), tactics (Seliger, 1984) and techniques (Stern, 1992) more or less (but not
always exactly) synonymously with the term strategy. Larsen-Freeman and Long
(1991, p.199) opt for the term strategy since, as they point out, Rubin (1975) used it
“in perhaps the earliest study in this area and it enjoys the widest currency today”. For
this reason, strategy is the term which will be used for the purposes of the present
work.
2
Definition and Classification
Since the work done by researchers such as Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975) in the midseventies,
awareness has been slowly growing of the importance of the strategies used
by learners in the language learning process, since ultimately, like the proverbial
horse led to water but which must do the drinking itself, even with the best teachers
and methods, students are the only ones who can actually do the learning. As Nyikos
and Oxford (1993, p.11) put it: “learning begins with the learner”.
This growing awareness has resulted in more recent years in what Skehan (1989,
p.285) calls an “explosion of activity” in the field of language learning strategy
research. In spite of this activity, however, defining and classifying language learning
strategies remains no easy task. Wenden and Rubin (1987, p.7) talk of “the elusive
nature of the term”, Ellis (1994, p.529) describes the concept as “fuzzy”, while
O’Malley et al (1985, p.22) put it this way:
There is no consensus on what constitutes a learning strategy in second
language learning or how these differ from other types of learner
activities. Learning, teaching and communication strategies are often
interlaced in discussions of language learning and are often applied to the
same behaviour. Further, even within the group of activities most often
referred to as learning strategies, there is considerable confusion about
definitions of specific strategies and about the hierarchic relationship
among strategies.
One of the earliest researchers in this field, Rubin (1975, p.43) provided a very broad
definition of learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use
to acquire knowledge”. In 1981 (pp.124-126) she identified two kinds of learning
strategies: those which contribute directly to learning, and those which contribute
indirectly to learning. The direct learning strategies she divided into six types
(clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive inferencing,
deductive reasoning, practice), and the indirect learning strategies she divided into two
types (creating opportunities for practice, production tricks).
Under production tricks, Rubin included communication strategies. This is a
controversial inclusion since learning strategies and communication strategies are seen
by some as two quite separate manifestations of language learner behaviour. Brown
(1980, p.87), for instance, draws a clear distinction between learning strategies and
communication strategies on the grounds that “communication is the output modality
and learning is the input modality”. Brown suggests that, while a learner generally
3
applies the same fundamental strategies (such as rule transference) used in learning a
language to communicating in that language, there are other communication strategies
such as avoidance or message abandonment which do not result in learning. Brown
(1994, p.118) concedes, however, that “in the arena of linguistic interaction, it is
sometimes difficult.....to distinguish between the two”.
Ellis (1986) is another who views strategies for learning and strategies for using,
including communication strategies or “devices for compensating for inadequate
resources” (p.165), as quite different manifestations of a more general phenomenon
which he calls learner strategies. He argues that it is even possible that successful use
of communication strategies may actually prevent language learning since skilful
compensation for lack of linguistic knowledge may obviate the need for learning.
Tarone (1980) takes a different point of view. She suggests that by helping students to
say what they want or need to say, communication strategies can help to expand
language. Even if the communication is not perfect in grammatical or lexical terms, in
the process of using the language for communication the learner will be exposed to
language input which may result in learning and which therefore may be considered a
learning strategy. The key point in this argument would seem to be that in order to be
considered a learning strategy rather than a communication strategy, the “basic
motivation is not to communicate but to learn” (Tarone, 1980, p.419). The problems
with differentiating between communication strategies and learning strategies on the
grounds of motivation or intention, however, as Tarone (1981) acknowledges, are that
we have, in practice, no way of determining what motivates a learner, that learners
may have a dual motivation to both learn and communicate, or that learners may learn
language even when the basic motivation was to communicate. As Tarone (1981,
p.290) aptly comments, “the relationship of learning strategies to communication
strategies is somewhat problematic”.
Ellis (1994, p.530) also concedes that there is “no easy way of telling whether a
strategy is motivated by a desire to learn or a desire to communicate”. This inability to
differentiate clearly between communication and learning strategies does nothing to
simplify the decision regarding what should or should not be included in learning
strategy taxonomies such as Rubin’s and others’, and leads to what Stern (1992, p.264)
acknowledges is “a certain arbitrariness in the classification of learning strategies”.
Working at much the same time as Rubin in the mid-seventies, Stern (1975) produced
a list of ten language learning strategies which he believed to be characteristic of good
language learners. At the top of the list he put “personal learning style” (p.311). Stern
later defined “strategies” as “broadly conceived intentional directions” (1992, p.261),
which is more similar to the definition of the term styles as used by other writers such
as Willing (1988) and Nunan (1991). The “behavioural manifestations of the
strategies” (Stern, 1992, p.261) he called techniques - a definition which would fit
better with what Rubin (1975) calls strategies. This inconsistent use of basic
4
terminology as employed by key researchers and writers in the language learning
strategy field has contributed to difficulties with definition and classification which
remain to this day.
When O’Malley et al (1985) came to conduct their research, they used the definition
of learning strategies as being “operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate
the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information” (p.23), a definition originally
used by Rigney (1978). In an attempt to produce a classification scheme with
mutually exclusive categories, O’Malley and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of
their own identifying 26 strategies which they divided into three categories:
metacognitive (knowing about learning), cognitive (specific to distinct learning
activities) and social. The metacognitive and cognitive categories correspond
approximately with Rubin’s indirect and direct strategies. However, the addition of
the social mediation category was an important step in the direction of acknowledging
the importance of interactional strategies in language learning.
Oxford (1990) took this process a step further. Like O’Malley et al (1985), she used
Rigney’s definition of language learning strategies as “operations employed by the
learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (Oxford,
1990, p.8) as a base. Attempting to redress the perceived problem that many strategy
inventories appeared to emphasise cognitive and metacognitive strategies and to
ascribe much less importance to affective and social strategies, she classified learning
strategies into six groups: memory strategies (which relate to how students remember
language), cognitive strategies (which relate to how students think about their
learning), compensation strategies (which enable students to make up for limited
knowledge), metacognitive strategies (relating to how students manage their own
learning), affective strategies (relating to students’ feelings) and social strategies
(which involve learning by interaction with others).
These six categories (which underlie the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) used by Oxford and others for a great deal of research in the learning strategy
field) were further divided into direct strategies (those which directly involve the
target language such as reviewing and practising) and indirect strategies (those which
provide indirect support for language learning such as planning, co-operating and
seeking opportunities). Although Oxford’s taxonomy is “perhaps the most
comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994, p.539), it is
still, of necessity, somewhat selective since “dozens and perhaps hundreds of such
strategies exist” (Oxford, Lavine and Crookall, 1989, p.29). Oxford (1990)
acknowledges the possibility that the categories will overlap, and gives as an example
the metacognitive strategy of planning, which, in as far as planning requires
reasoning, might also be considered a cognitive strategy. She also deals with the
difficulty of whether a compensation strategy such as looking for synonyms when the
exact word is unknown is a learning strategy or a communication strategy. Although
Ellis (1994, p.539) comments that compensation strategies are included “somewhat
5
confusingly”, Oxford (1990, p.49) justifies including such behaviours as learning
strategies on the grounds that they “help learners become more fluent in what they
already know [and] may lead learners to gain new information about what is
appropriate or permissible in the target language”. However, she acknowledges that
(p.17)
there is no complete agreement on exactly what strategies are; how many
strategies exist; how they should be defined, demarcated, and
categorised; and whether it is - or ever will be - possible to create a real,
scientifically validated hierarchy of strategies....Classification conflicts
are inevitable.
Amid this welter of overlapping material and conflicting opinion, the process of
establishing terminology, definitions and classification systems for language learning
strategies is far from straightforward. In the face of the lack of consensus which is a
feature of the language learning strategy field, whatever term may be used, and
however it may be defined or classified, it is inevitably going to come into conflict
with one or other of the competing terms, definitions and classification systems. I
would, however, like to suggest that Rigney’s (1978) definition together with
Oxford’s (1990) classification system can provide a useful base for understanding
language learning strategies (Rubin’s 1975 term) and for launching research.
The Development of Language Learning Strategy Theory
As noted by Griffiths and Parr (2001) over the years many different methods and
approaches to the teaching and learning of language to and by speakers of other
languages (SOL), each with its own theoretical basis, have come and gone in and out
of fashion (for instance the grammar-translation method, the audio lingual method,
the communicative approach). Language learning strategies, although still fuzzily
defined and controversially classified, are increasingly attracting the interest of
contemporary educators because of their potential to enhance learning. In the light of
this interest, I would like to take a look at the theory underlying language learning
strategies beginning from the perspective of the various other theories, methods and
approaches from which, and alongside which, language learning strategy theory has
developed.
Derived from the way Latin and Greek were taught, the grammar-translation method,
as its name suggests, relied heavily on the teaching of grammar and practising
translation as its main teaching and learning activities (Richards, Platt and Platt,
1992). The major focus of this method tended to be reading and writing, with very
little attention paid to speaking and listening. Vocabulary was typically taught in lists,
and a high priority was given to accuracy and to the ability to construct correct
6
sentences. Instruction was typically conducted in the students’ native language. This
resulted in, as Richards and Rodgers (1986, pp.3-4) put it,
the type of grammar-translation courses remembered with distaste by
thousands of school learners, for whom foreign language learning meant
a tedious experience of memorising endless lists of unusable grammar
rules and vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect translations of
stilted or literary prose.
The possibility that students might use language learning strategies to promote their
own learning had little or no place in grammar-translation theory, and is rarely if ever
mentioned in any literature on the subject, as Tarone and Yule (1989, p.133) point out
when they comment “relatively little attention seems to have been paid, in any
consistent way, to considerations of the whole process from the learner’s point of
view”. It tended to be assumed that if learners simply followed the grammartranslation
method they would, as a matter of course, learn language, although the
seeds of an awareness of the importance of the learner’s contribution to the learning
process was perhaps there in, for instance, suggestions for how to remember
vocabulary lists (mnemonics, grouping, repetition etc) which were quite common in
grammar-translation classrooms.
The audio lingual method grew partly out of a reaction against the limitations of the
grammar-translation method, and partly out of the urgent war-time demands for fluent
speakers of languages such as German, Italian and Japanese. The “Army Method” was
developed to produce military personnel with conversational proficiency in the target
language. After the war, the “Army Method” attracted the attention of linguists
already looking for an alternative to grammar-translation and became known as the
audio lingual method. By the sixties, audiolingualism was widespread (Richards and
Rodgers, 1986).
In direct contrast to the grammar-translation method, the audio lingual method was
based on the belief that speaking and listening are the most basic language skills and
should be emphasised before reading and writing (Richards, Platt and Platt, 1992).
Audio lingual teaching methods depended heavily on drills and repetition, which were
justified according to behaviourist theories that language is a system of habits which
can be taught and learnt on the stimulus, response and reinforcement basis that
behaviourists believed controlled all human learning, including language learning.
Since audio lingual theory depended on the automatic patterning of behaviour there
was little or no recognition given to any conscious contribution which the individual
learner might make in the learning process. Indeed, learners were discouraged from
taking initiative in the learning situation because they might make mistakes (Richards
and Rodgers, 1986). If anything, there was even less place for individual language
learning strategies in audio lingual theory than there had been in grammar-translation
7
theory, except, perhaps, in a very limited form in the exercising of memory and
cognitive strategies by means of repetition and substitution exercises, and even this
was rarely, if ever, made explicit. The effect of audio lingual techniques of rote
learning, repetition, imitation, memorisation and pattern practice was to minimise the
importance of explicit learning strategies in the language learning process (Stern,
1992).
In the early sixties, audiolingualism was commonly seen as a major breakthrough
which would revolutionise the teaching and learning of languages. No more tedious
grammar rules! No more vocabulary lists! No more hours spent translating boring
texts! Audiolingualism, as Stern (1980, p.465) puts it “raised hopes of ushering in a
golden age of language learning”. By the end of the sixties, however, the limitations of
the audio lingual method were beginning to make themselves obvious. Contrary to
audio lingual theory, as Hutchinson and Waters (1990) comment, language learners
did not act according to behaviourist expectations. They wanted to translate things,
demanded grammar rules, found endless repetition boring and not conducive to
learning.
It was at this time, in the mid to late sixties, that the ideas of the highly influential
linguist, Noam Chomsky (for instance Chomsky, 1965; 1968) began to have a major
effect on linguistic theory. Chomsky postulated that all normal human beings are born
with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) which enables them to develop language
from an innate set of principles which he called the Universal Grammar (UG).
Chomsky’s theory of Transformational-Generative Grammar attempts to explain how
original utterances are generated from a language user’s underlying competence.
Chomsky believed that behaviourist theory could not explain the complexities of
generative grammar and concluded that “the creative aspect of language use, when
investigated with care and respect for the facts, shows that current notions of habit and
generalisation, as determinants of behaviour or knowledge, are quite inadequate”
(Chomsky, 1968, p.84).
Although Chomsky’s theories directly related mainly to first language learners, his
view of the learner as a generator of rules was taken up by Corder (1967) who argued
that language errors made by students who are speakers of other languages indicate the
development of underlying linguistic competence and reflect the learners’ attempts to
organise linguistic input. The intermediate system created while the learner is trying to
come to terms with the target language was later called “interlanguage” (IL) by
Selinker (1972) who viewed learner errors as evidence of positive efforts by the
student to learn the new language. This view of language learning allowed for the
possibility of learners making deliberate attempts to control their own learning and,
along with theories of cognitive processes in language learning promoted by writers
such as McLaughlin (1978) and Bialystok (1978), contributed to a research thrust in
the mid to late seventies aimed at discovering how learners employ learning strategies
to promote the learning of language (for instance Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975; Naiman,
8
Frohlich, Stern and Todesco, 1978). The idea that teachers should be concerned not
only with “finding the best method or with getting the correct answer” but also with
assisting a student in order to “enable him to learn on his own” (Rubin 1975, p.45)
was, at the time, quite revolutionary.
At much the same time, however, as researchers such as Rubin, Stern and Naiman et
al were working to develop an awareness of language learning strategies, Krashen (for
instance Krashen, 1976; 1977) dealt the fledgling language learning strategy
movement a body blow and took off in almost exactly the opposite direction.
Challenging the rule-driven theories of the grammar-translation method, the audio
lingual behaviourist theories that language can be taught as a system of habits, as well
as the idea of learners being able to consciously control their own learning, Krashen
proposed his five hypotheses. Summarised briefly (Krashen and Terrell, 1983), these
consist of the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis (conscious learning is an ineffective
way of developing language, which is better acquired through natural
communication), the Natural Order Hypothesis (grammatical structures of a language
are acquired in a predictable order), the Monitor Hypothesis (conscious learning is of
very little value to an adult language learner, and can only be useful under certain
conditions as a monitor or editor), the Input Hypothesis (language is acquired by
understanding input which is a little beyond the current level of competence
(comprehensible input)) and the Affective Filter Hypothesis (a learner’s emotions and
attitudes can act as a filter which slows down the acquisition of language. When the
affective filter is high it can block language development).
Taken to their extreme, Krashen’s hypotheses led to the belief that conscious teaching
and learning were not useful in the language learning process, and that any attempt to
teach or learn language in a formal kind of a way was doomed to failure. By
implication, therefore, since in Krashen’s view conscious learning had so little value,
there was very little room for conscious language learning strategies to play a role in
the process of language development. Many of Krashen’s ideas have been soundly
criticised over the years, and his penchant for sweeping statements, such as “speech
cannot be taught directly but ‘emerges’ on its own as a result of building competence
via comprehensible input” (Krashen, 1985, p.2) and “when the filter is ‘down’ and
comprehensible input is presented and comprehended, acquisition is inevitable. It is, in
fact, unavoidable and cannot be prevented” (Krashen, 1985, p.4), have made him easy
to challenge. McLaughlin (1978), for instance, approaching the issue from a cognitive
psychologist’s point of view, proposed an information-processing approach to
language development whereby students can obtain knowledge of a language by
thinking through the rules until they become automatic, a view which is quite contrary
to the assertions of the Monitor Hypothesis. Gregg (1984, p.94) voiced the criticism
that “each of Krashen’s hypotheses is marked by serious flaws”, while Pienemann (for
instance Pienemann, 1985; 1989), challenging the claims of the Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis, postulated that language can be taught and learnt when the learner is
ready (Teachability Hypothesis).
9
In spite of the many challenges, Krashen’s views have been and remain very
influential in the language teaching and learning field. Even a harsh critic such as
Gregg, who censures Krashen for being “incoherent” and “dogmatic” admits that “he
is often right on the important questions” (Gregg, 1984, pp.94-95), and in as far as
Krashen (for instance Krashen, 1981) believed that language develops through natural
communication, he might be considered one of the driving forces behind the
communicative language teaching movement which is in vogue to the present day.
An important theoretical principle underlying the communicative language teaching
movement was called “communicative competence” by Hymes (1972).
Communicative competence is the ability to use language to convey and interpret
meaning, and it was later divided by Canale and Swain (1980) into four separate
components: grammatical competence (which relates to the learner’s knowledge of
the vocabulary, phonology and rules of the language), discourse competence (which
relates to the learner’s ability to connect utterances into a meaningful whole),
sociolinguistic competence (which relates to the learner’s ability to use language
appropriately) and strategic competence (which relates to a learner’s ability to employ
strategies to compensate for imperfect knowledge). Another cornerstone of
communicative language teaching theory is the belief that how language functions is
more important than knowledge of form or structure. The concept of the
communicative functions of language promoted by Wilkins (1976) have had a strong
influence on contemporary language learning programmes and textbooks. Other wellknown
figures in the field have consolidated and extended the theories of
communicative language teaching. Widdowson, for instance, believes that by using a
communicative approach language can be developed incidentally, as a by-product of
using it (1978), and that “knowing will emerge from doing” (1991, p.160), while
Littlewood (1981) stresses the need to give learners extensive opportunities to use the
target language for real communicative purposes, and believes that the ability to
communicate effectively is more important than perfect mastery.
Although “the communicative approach implicitly encourages learners to take greater
responsibility for their own learning” (Oxford et al, 1989, p.33), typically the
emphasis in the communicative language movement, as in previous methods and
approaches, has been on how teachers teach, with relatively little attention paid to
how learners learn. Even today, when the communicative approach underlies a
substantial number of syllabuses for speakers of other languages, and in spite of
insights from a now considerable body of research, it is unusual to find textbooks
which include learning strategies in their material. A rare exception is Blueprint
(Abbs and Freebairn, 1991), and even in this series, the space dedicated to learning
strategies consists of no more than a paragraph at the end of each section.
Other less widely adopted language teaching and learning methods and approaches
include, among others, situational language teaching (whereby grammar and
10
vocabulary are practised through situations), the natural method (which emphasises
natural acquisition rather than formal grammar study), the direct method (which uses
only the target language), the total physical response method (which stresses the
importance of motor activity), the silent way (which encourages the teacher to be
silent as much as possible) and suggestopoedia (which attempts to harness the
influence of suggestion, such as music or art, on human behaviour).
It would probably be fair to say that to a greater or lesser extent all of these various
methods and approaches have had some influence on the contemporary language
learning and teaching field which has tended in recent years to move away from
dogmatic positions of “right” or “wrong” and to become much more eclectic in its
attitudes and willing to recognise the potential merits of a wide variety of possible
methods and approaches, as noted by writers such as Larsen-Freeman (1987) and
Tarone and Yule (1989). In line with this modern interest in eclecticism, educators are
becoming increasingly interested in the contribution made by the learners themselves
in the teaching/learning partnership. Awareness has been slowly growing for some
time that “any learning is an active process” (Rivers, 1983, p.134. Author’s italics),
and the idea that language learners are individuals who can take charge of their own
learning and achieve autonomy by the use of learning strategies has been researched
and promoted by educators such as Oxford (1990), O’Malley and Chamot (1990),
Bialystok (1991), Cohen (1991), Wenden (1991), and Green and Oxford (1995).
There are several important theoretical assumptions which underlie contemporary
ideas on language learning strategies. To comment that some students are more
successful at learning language than others is, of course, to do no more than state the
obvious. Language learning strategy theory postulates that, other things being equal,
at least part of this differential success rate is attributable to the varying strategies
which different learners bring to the task. From this perspective, which views students
as being able to consciously influence their own learning, the learning of language
becomes a cognitive process similar in many ways to any other kind of learning
(McLaughlin, 1978). It is a view diametrically opposed to Krashen’s Monitor and
Acquisition/Learning Hypotheses (Krashen, 1976; 1977) which state that language
cannot be consciously learnt but only acquired through natural communication and
therefore, by implication, that conscious learning strategies are not useful in the
development of language.
With the exception of the Monitor and Acquisition/Learning Hypotheses, language
learning strategy theory operates comfortably alongside most of the contemporary
language learning and teaching theories and fits easily with a wide variety of different
methods and approaches. For instance, memory and cognitive strategies are involved
in the development of vocabulary and grammar knowledge on which the grammartranslation
method depends. Memory and cognitive strategies can be involved to
make the patterning of automatic responses characteristic of the audiolingual method
more effective. Learning from errors (developed from interlanguage theory) involves
11
cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Compensation and social strategies can easily
be assimilated into communicative competence theory and the communicative
language teaching approach. Methods such as suggestopoedia involve affective
strategies. The fact that learning strategy theory can work so easily alongside other
theories, methods and approaches means that it has the potential to be a valuable
component of contemporary eclectic syllabuses.
Research into Language Learning Strategies
One of the difficulties with researching language learning strategies is that they
cannot usually be observed directly; they can only be inferred from language learner
behaviour. As Ellis (1986, p.14) rather colourfully puts it: “It is a bit like trying to
work out the classification system of a library when the only evidence to go on
consists of the few books you have been allowed to take out”. Given the difficulties of
such a task, the challenge has been to devise a means first of all to record and
subsequently to interpret the phenomena involved, a process which Ellis (1986,
p.188) likens to “stumbling blindfold round a room to find a hidden object”. Over the
years, different researchers have employed a variety of approaches to this rather
daunting task, one of the most frequently used of which has been the gathering of data
about good language learners and about what it is that they do that makes them more
successful than slower language learners
Studies involving successful and unsuccessful language learners
One of the earliest researchers in this area, Rubin (1975), defining strategies as “the
techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” (p.43)
concluded that successful language learners had a strong desire to communicate, were
willing to guess when unsure, and were not afraid of being wrong or appearing
foolish. This did not mean that they did not care about correctness, however: good
language learners also paid attention to form and meaning in their language. In
addition, good language learners practise and monitor their own language and the
language of those around them. Rubin noted that the employment of these strategies
depended on a number of variables such as target language proficiency, age, situation
and cultural differences. Some of Rubin’s findings have been supported by other more
recent researchers, such as Wong Filmore (1982), who, reporting on research into
individual differences at the University of California, paid special attention to the
social strategies (although she did not use this term) employed by good language
learners. She reported that the good language learners “spent more time than they
should have during class time socialising and minding everyone else’s
12
business.....they were constantly involved in the affairs of their classmates” (p.63).
This behaviour is consistent with the strong desire to communicate noted by Rubin
(1975) as characteristic of good language learners.
At around the same time as Rubin, Stern (1975) produced a list of ten language learning
strategies. He believed that the good language learner is characterised by a personal
learning style or positive learning strategies, an active approach to the learning task, a
tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language which is empathetic with its
speakers, technical know-how about how to tackle a language, strategies of
experimentation and planning with the object of developing the new language into an
ordered system with progressive revision, constantly searching for meaning, willingness
to practise, willingness to use the language in real communication, critically sensitive
self-monitoring in language use and an ability to develop the target language more and
more as a separate reference system while learning to think about it.
These rather broad “characterisations” (Stern, 1975, p.316) are somewhat at variance
with the more specific way in which Rubin (1975) defines the term strategy, especially
as she refined her usage of the term in later work (for instance Rubin, 1981; 1987).
Although this very early work by researchers such as Rubin and Stern provided many
valuable insights and formed the foundations for much subsequent work on language
learning strategies, the difficulties with the definition evident even at this point remain
unresolved to this day, as previously discussed.
In another pioneering piece of research, Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and Todesco (1978)
also tried to find out what people known to be good at languages had in common.
Using a very broad definition of strategies as “ general, more or less deliberate
approaches” (p.4), they discovered that good language learners are able to adapt
learning styles to suit themselves, are actively involved in the language learning
process, are able to develop an awareness of language both as a system of rules and as
a means of communication, are constantly working at expanding their language
knowledge, develop the target language as a separate system which does not always
have to be related to the first language, and are realistically aware of the demands of
learning language.
Other studies which have attempted to investigate the relationship between language
learning strategies and success in language development by speakers of other
languages have produced mixed results. O’Malley et al (1985, 1985a) discovered that,
although students at all levels reported the use of an extensive variety of learning
strategies, defined as “any set of operations or steps used by a learner that will
facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information” (1985, p.23), higher
level students reported greater use of metacognitive strategies (that is strategies used
by students to manage their own learning), leading the researchers to conclude that
the more successful students are probably able to exercise greater metacognitive
control over their learning. This conclusion, however, is somewhat at variance with
13
the results of a study by Ehrman and Oxford (1995) who investigated the relationship
between end-of-course proficiency and a number of variables including language
learning strategies. The results of this study indicated that cognitive strategies such as
looking for patterns and reading for pleasure in the target language were the only
kinds of strategies which had a significant positive relationship with success in
learning language.
Language learning strategies of all kinds are used more frequently by higher level
students according to the results of a large-scale study of university students in Puerto
Rico by Green and Oxford (1995). Green and Oxford also discovered a core of what
they call “bedrock strategies” (p.289. Authors’ italics), a group of 23 strategies used
equally frequently by students across proficiency levels. Green and Oxford speculate
that these basic strategies are not necessarily unproductive, but that they may
contribute significantly to the learning process without being in themselves sufficient
to move the less successful students to higher levels of proficiency.
Griffiths (2003) also discovered a positive correlation between course level and
reported frequency of language learning strategy use. In a study involving 348
students in a private language school in New Zealand, Griffiths found that language
learning strategies were reportedly used significantly more frequently by advanced
students than by elementary students. According to an examination of the patterns of
language learning strategy use which emerged from the data, higher level students
reported highly frequent use of strategies relating to interaction with others, to
vocabulary, to reading, to the tolerance of ambiguity, to language systems, to the
management of feelings, to the management of learning and to the utilisation of
available resources.
Although it is perhaps natural to want to concentrate positive attention on good
language learners, researchers have also been aware that there is a lot to be learnt by
observation of what unsuccessful language learners do, and, therefore, by implication,
what learners should, perhaps, try to avoid. Writing about her own less than totally
successful efforts to become literate in Chinese, Sinclair Bell (1995) reports that she
found the experience immensely stressful. One of the reasons for her difficulties, she
believes, is “I used the same strategies and approaches for L2 literacy as had given me
success in L1 literacy” (p.701). The difficulty of changing students familiar strategy
patterns is also reported by O’Malley (1987)
A similar observation is also made by Porte (1988, p.168): “The majority of learners
said that they used strategies which were the same as, or very similar to, those they
had used at schools in their native countries”. After interviewing fifteen underachieving
learners in private language schools in London, Porte came to the rather
interesting conclusion that these under-achieving students in fact used very similar
strategies to those used by successful language learners. The difference seemed to be
14
not so much which strategies were used, but “the fact that they may demonstrate less
sophistication and a less suitable response to a particular activity” (p.68).
Although the research into language learning strategies used by successful and
unsuccessful language learners has produced some interesting insights, the picture
which emerges is far from unified. An alternative approach used by researchers has
been to study some of the various factors which influence individual students in their
choice of learning strategies
Studies investigating factors affecting strategy choice
Studies which have examined the relationship between sex and strategy use have
come to mixed conclusions. Ehrman and Oxford (1989) and Oxford and Nyikos
(1989) discovered distinct gender differences in strategy use. The study by Green and
Oxford (1995) came to the same conclusion. Ehrman and Oxford’s (1990) study,
however failed to discover any evidence of differing language learning strategy use
between the sexes. It might be concluded, perhaps, that, although men and women do
not always demonstrate differences in language learning strategy use, where
differences are found women tend to use more language learning strategies than men.
The effects of psychological type were the focus of a study by Ehrman and Oxford
(1989) when they reported on an investigation into the effects of learner variables on
adult language learning strategies at the Foreign Service Institute, USA. They
concluded that the relationship between language learning strategy use and
personality type (as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator MBTI) is far from
straightforward. In a later study in the same setting, Ehrman and Oxford (1990)
concluded that psychological type appears to have a strong influence on the way
learners use language learning strategies.
The effects of motivation on language learning strategy use were highlighted when
Oxford and Nyikos (1989) surveyed 1,200 students studying various languages in a
Midwestern American university in order to examine the kinds of language learning
strategies the students reported using. On this occasion, the degree of expressed
motivation was discovered to be the most influential of the variables affecting
strategy choice examined. In their study at the Foreign Service Institute, Ehrman and
Oxford (1989) discovered that career choice had a major effect on reported language
learning strategy use, a finding which they suggest may be the result of underlying
motivation.
Studies which have investigated nationality as a factor in language learning strategy
use are not easy to find, although Griffiths and Parr (2000) reported finding that
European students reported using language learning strategies significantly more
frequently than students of other nationalities, especially strategies relating to
vocabulary, to reading, to interaction with others and to the tolerance of ambiguity.
15
European students were also working at a significantly higher level than students of
other nationalities. In a study involving a questionnaire and group interviews in
Taiwan, Yang (1998) made some interesting discoveries about her students’ language
learning strategy use, including strategies for using dictionaries. In a later study, Yang
(1999) discovered that, although her students were aware of various language learning
strategies, few of them actually reported using them. Using a journal writing method,
Usuki (2000) discussed the psychological barriers to the adoption of effective
language learning strategies by Japanese students, who are typically regarded as
passive learners, and recommended more co-operation between students and teachers.
Two studies which produced findings on nationality-related differences in language
learning strategies incidental to the main research thrust were those reported by
Politzer and McGroarty (1985) and by O’Malley (1987). Politzer and McGroarty
discovered that Asian students exhibited fewer of the strategies expected of “good”
language learners than did Hispanic students while O’Malley ascribed the lack of
success of Asian students to the persistence of familiar strategies.
An interesting contrast to the findings of the all of the previous studies in this section
is that by Willing (1988). Willing administered questionnaires on learning style
preference and strategy use to a large number of adult immigrant speakers of other
languages in Australia. The results were examined for style preference and strategy
use compared with various biographical variables such as ethnic origin, age, gender,
proficiency and length of residence in Australia. Willing concluded that style
preference and strategy use remained virtually constant across all of these variables.
Such conflicting research findings do nothing but underscore the difficulties of
reaching any kind of consensus in the area of language learning strategies.
Studies of the effects of strategy instruction
The belief that language learning strategies are teachable and that learners can benefit
from coaching in learning strategies underlies much of the research in the field (for
instance Oxford, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Cook, 1991) In line with this belief,
many researchers have worked to demonstrate the pedagogical applications of
findings from studies into language learning strategies.
One study which researched the effects of the teaching of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies on reading comprehension in the classroom was conducted by Tang and
Moore (1992). They concluded that, while cognitive strategy instruction (title
discussion, pre-teaching vocabulary) improved comprehension scores, the
performance gains were not maintained upon the withdrawal of the treatment.
Metacognitive strategy instruction, on the other hand, involving the teaching of selfmonitoring
strategies, appeared to lead to improvements in comprehension ability
which were maintained beyond the end of the treatment. This finding accords with
that of O’Malley et al (1985) who discovered that higher level students are more able
than lower level students to exercise metacognitive control over their learning.
16
In another classroom based study which aimed to research whether learner strategy
training makes a difference in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, Nunan (1995)
involved 60 students in a 12 week programme “designed to help them reflect on their
own learning, to develop their knowledge of, and ability to apply learning strategies,
to assess their own progress, and to apply their language skills beyond the
classroom”(p.3). Nunan concluded that his study supported the idea that language
classrooms should have a dual focus, teaching both content and an awareness of
language processes.
A negative result for the effectiveness of language learning strategy instruction was
achieved, however, when O’Malley (1987) and his colleagues randomly assigned 75
students to one of three instructional groups where they received training in
(1)metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective strategies, (2)cognitive and
socioaffective strategies, or (3)no special instruction in language learning strategies
(control group) for listening, speaking and vocabulary acquisition skills. Among other
findings, it was discovered that the control group for vocabulary actually scored
slightly higher than the treatment groups. O’Mally explains this unexpected finding as
being due to the persistence of familiar strategies among certain students, who
continued to use rote repetitive strategies and were unwilling to adopt the strategies
presented in training, especially when they knew they would be tested within only a
few minutes. This is an interesting finding when compared with Porte’s (1988)
observations concerning his underachieving students and with Sinclair Bell’s (1995)
comments on her own attempt to become literate in Chinese.
Although results regarding the effectiveness of strategy training are rather mixed, the
hypothesis that some of the success achieved by good language learners may be as a
result of more effective language learning strategies is intuitively appealing, as is the
assumption that the language learning strategies of the more successful students may
be learnt by the less successful students and that teachers can assist the language
learning process by promoting language learning strategy awareness and use. This
teachability component has meant that language learning strategies are increasingly
attracting the attention of contemporary educators and researchers who are keen to
harness the potential which language learning strategies would seem to have to
enhance an individual’s ability to learn language.
Conclusion
It is common in the literature on language learning strategies for writers to refer to the
“recent” nature of research in this field (for instance Cohen, 1991; Oxford and Cohen,
17
1992; Nyikos and Oxford, 1993; Green and Oxford, 1995). In fact, however, what are
regarded by many (for instance Oxford, 1989a; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991; Ellis,
1994) as the foundation studies in this area were conducted in the mid seventies (for
instance by Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). The questions which arise, then, are: If
language learning strategies have as much potential for enhancing learning as some
(for instance O’Malley et al, 1985; Chamot and O’Malley, 1987; Willing, 1989;
Brown, 1994) believe, why has it taken nearly a quarter of a century for research
findings to be applied to the classroom? Why do teachers give them such scant
attention and understand them so poorly, as reported for instance by O’Malley et al
(1985), Wenden (1987) and Oxford et al (1989). Why do they receive such cursory
treatment (if any) in SOL textbooks? And why has it taken so long to even establish a
generally agreed definition and classification system?
By trying to locate language learning strategies within the framework of other
theories, methods and approaches to the teaching of language to speakers of other
languages, I have attempted to demonstrate that the history of what might be called
modern second language teaching (since the middle of the twentieth century) has been
punctuated by extremes. Each new method or approach has tended to be heralded as
the answer to all problems, and, in the rush to welcome the newcomer, the older
methods and approaches have often been unceremoniously abandoned in what might
be called a baby-and-bathwater type reaction. Increasingly, however, as the new
methods and approaches have failed to deliver quite the hoped-for miracles,
awareness has grown that each different method or approach has its strengths and
that, in combination, they can be used to enhance each other. As a result “there has
emerged a general movement towards eclecticism” (Tarone and Yule, 1989, p.10)
where methods are chosen to suit the students and the situation involved rather than
because they conform to some rigid theory (such as the Audiolingual insistence that
students should never see words written before they have heard them spoken). As
Larsen-freeman (1897, p.7) puts it: “It is not uncommon for teachers today to practice
a principled eclecticism, combining techniques and principles from various methods
in a carefully reasoned manner”.
In the light of historical experience, therefore, it is perhaps, important that, although
learning strategies have the potential to be “an extremely powerful learning tool”
(O’Malley, 1985, p.43), we should keep them also in perspective. It is probably
unlikely that learning strategies will prove to be a magic wand to solve all language
learning problems any more than any of the other eagerly-seized new ideas have
proven to be in the last 50 years. But, used eclectically, in conjunction with other
techniques, learning strategies may well prove to be an extremely useful addition to a
language learner’s tool kit.
18
References
Abbs, Brian & Ingrid Freebairn (1991). Blueprint. UK: Addison, Wesley, Longman
Allwright, Dick & Kathleen M Bailey (1991). Focus on the language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bailey, Kathleen M & David Nunan (eds) (1996). Voices from the language
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Bialystok, Ellen (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning, Language
Learning, Vol 28, No1, 69-83
Bialystok, Ellen (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language
proficiency, The Modern Language Journal, 65 (Spring 1981), 24-35
Bialystok, Ellen (1991). Achieving proficiency in a second language: a processing
description. In R. Phillipson, Eric Kellerman, Larry Selinker, Mike Sharwood-Smith
& Merrill Swain (eds), 63-77.
Brown, H Douglas (1980). Principles and practices of language learning and
teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Brown, H Douglas (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H, C Yorio, & R Crymes (eds) (1977). On TESOL ‘77. Washington DC:
TESOL
Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47
Chamot, Anna Uhl (1987). The Learning Strategies of ESL Students. In A. Wenden &
Joan Rubin (eds), 71-83
Chamot, Anna Uhl & Michael O’Malley (1987). The cognitive academic language
learning approach: a Bridge to the mainstream, TESOL Quarterly, 21/2, 227-250.
Chaudron, Craig (1995). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
19
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT
Press
Chomsky, Noam (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
Clarke, Mark A & Jean Handscombe (1982). On TESOL. Washington: TESOL
Cohen, Andrew D (1991). Strategies in second language learning :insights from
research. In Phillipson et al (eds), 107-119
Cook, Vivian (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London:
Edward Arnold
Corder, S Pit (1967). The significance of learners’ errors, International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 5, 160-170
Eckman, F, L Bell & D Nelson (eds) (1984). Universals of second language
acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House
Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca Oxford (1989). Effects of sex differences, career
choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies, The modern
language journal, 73/1, 1-13
Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca Oxford (1990). Adult language learning styles and
strategies in an intensive training setting, The modern language journal, 74/3, 311-327
Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca Oxford (1995). Cognition plus: correlates of language
learning success, The modern language journal, 79/1, 67-89
Ellis, Gail & Barbara Sinclair (1994). Learning to learn English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Ellis, Rod (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Rod (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Green, John, M & Rebecca Oxford (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2
Proficiency and Gender, TESOL Quarterly, 29/2, 261-297.
Gregg, K (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor, Applied Linguistics, 5, 78-
100.
20
Griffiths, Carol (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use, System, 31, 367-
383
Griffiths, C. & Judy M. Parr (2000). Language learning strategies, nationality,
Independence and Proficiency, Independence, 28, 7-10
Griffiths, C & Judy M. Parr (2001). Language-learning strategies: theory and
perception, ELT Journal, 55/3, 247-254
Henning, C (ed) (1977). Proceedings of the Los Angeles second language research
forum. English Department, University of California at Los Angeles
Higgs, T (ed) (1982). Curriculum, competence and the foreign language teacher.
Skokie, Il: National Textbook
Higgs, T & R Clifford (1982). The push toward communication. In T Higgs (ed), 57-
79.
Hutchinson, Tom & Alan Waters (1990). English for specific purposes: a learningcentred
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hyltenstam, K & M Pienemann (eds) (1985). Modelling and assessing second
language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
Hymes, Del (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride and Holmes (eds) 1972
Krashen, Stephen (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language
acquisition and language learning, TESOL Quarterly, 10, 157-68
Krashen, Stephen (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. Brown et
al (eds), 144-158
Krashen, Stephen, D (1981). Second language acquisition and second language
learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Krashen, Stephen, D (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press
Krashen, Stephen, D (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman
Krashen, Stephen, D & Tracy D Terrell (1983). The natural approach. Hayward,
California: Hayward Press.
21
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (1987). From unity to diversity: twenty-five years of
language-teaching methodology, Forum, 25/4, 2-10
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (1991). Second language acquisition research: staking out the
territory, TESOL Quarterly, 25/2, 315-350
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Michael H Long (1991). An introduction to second
language acquisition research. London & NY: Longman
Littlewood, William (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Long, M (1990). Maturational constraints on language development, Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 12, 251-285
McLaughlin, B (1978). The Monitor model: Some methodological considerations,
Language Learning, 28, 309-32
McLaughlin, Barry, Tammi Rossman & Beverly McLeod (1983). Second language
learning: An information-processing perspective, Language Learning, 33/2, 135-158
Naiman, N, M Frohlich, H Stern, & A Todesco (1978). The good language learner.
Research in Education Series No 7. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Nunan, David (1991). Language teaching methodology. New York: Phoenix
Nunan, David (1994). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Nunan, David (1995). Learner strategy training in the classroom: A case study.
Unpublished paper.
Nyikos, Martha & Rebecca Oxford (1993). A factor Analytic Study of Language-
Learning Strategy Use: Interpretations from Information-Processing Theory and
Social Psychology, The Modern Language Journal, 77, 11-22
O’Malley, J Michael (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on
learning English as a second language. In Anita Wenden & Joan Rubin (eds) 133-143
O’Malley, J Michael, Anna Uhl Chamot, Gloria Stewner-Manzanares, Lisa Kupper &
Rocco P Russo (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL
students, Language Learning, 35/1, 21-46
22
O’Malley, J Michael, Anna Uhl Chamot, Gloria Stewner-Manzanares, Rocco P Russo
& Lisa Kupper (1985a). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a
second language, TESOL Quarterly, 19/3, 557-584
O’Malley, J Michael & Anna Uhl Chamot (1990). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Neil, HF (Jr) (ed) (1978). Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press
Oxford, Rebecca L (1989). ‘The Best and the worst’: an exercise to tap perceptions of
language-learning experiences and strategies, Foreign Language Annals, 22/5, 447-
454
Oxford, Rebecca L (1989a). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies
with implications for strategy training, System, 17/2, 235-247
Oxford, R L (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House
Oxford, Rebecca L & Judith Burry-Stock (1995). Assessing the use of language
learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL), System, 25/1, 1-23
Oxford, Rebecca L & Andrew D Cohen (1992). Language learning strategies: crucial
issues of concept and classification, Applied Language Learning, 3/1&2, 1-35
Oxford, Rebecca L, Roberta Z Lavine & David Crookall (1989). Language learning
strategies, the communicative approach and their classroom implications, Foreign
Language Annals, 22/1, 29-39
Oxford, Rebecca & Martha Nyikos (1989). Variables affecting choice of language
learning strategies by university students, The Modern Language Journal, 73/3, 291-
300.
Pearson, Eloise (1988). Learner strategies and learner interviews, ELT Journal, 42/3,
173-178
Phillipson, Robert, Eric Kellerman, Larry Selinker, Michael Sharwood-Smith &
Merrill Swain (1991). Foreign/Second language pedagogy research. Clevedon,
Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters
Pienemann, M (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M
Pienemann (eds) 23-75
23
Pienemann, M (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and
hypotheses, Applied Linguistics, 10, 52-79
Politzer, R & McGroarty, M (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviours and
their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence, TESOL
Quarterly 19, 103-123
Porte, Graeme (1988). Poor language learners and their strategies for dealing with new
vocabulary, ELT Journal, 42/3, 167-171
Pride, J B & J Holmes (eds) (1972). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Richards, Jack, C (1994). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Richards, Jack C, John Platt & Heidi Platt (1992). Longman dictionary of language
teaching and applied linguistics. Harlow: Longman
Richards, Jack C & Theodore Rodgers (1986). Approaches and methods in language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rigney, JW (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H F O’Neil (Jr)
(ed) 165-205
Rivers, Wilga (1983). Speaking in many tongues. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Rubin, J (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us, TESOL Quarterly, 9,
41-51.
Rubin, J (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning, Applied
Linguistics, 11, 117-131
Rubin, Joan (1987). Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. In A. Wenden & Joan Rubin (eds), 15-19.
Seliger, H (1984). Processing universals in second language acquisition. In F.
Eckman, L Bell & D Nelson (eds) 36-47
Selinker, L (1972). Interlanguage, International review of applied linguistics, 10, 209-
230
Sharwood Smith, Michael (1994). Second language learning: theoretical foundations.
London and New York: Longman
24
Sinclair Bell, Jill (1995). The relationship between L1 and L2 literacy: Some
complicating factors, TESOL Quarterly, 29/4, 687-704
Skehan, Peter (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London:
Edward Arnold
Spolsky, Bernard (1989). Conditions for second language Llearning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Stern, H H (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner?, Canadian
Modern Language Review, 34, 304-318
Stern, H H (1980). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Stern, H H (1992). Issues and options in language teaching (edited posthumously by
Patrick Allen & Birgit Harley). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tang, Hui Nee & Dennis W Moore (1992). Effects of cognitive and metacognitive
pre-reading activities on the reading comprehension of ESL learners, Educational
Psychology, 12/3&4, 315-331
Tarone, Elaine (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in
interlanguage, Language Learning, 30/2, 417-429
Tarone, Elaine (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy,
TESOL Quarterly, 15/3, 285-295
Tarone, Elaine & George Yule (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Usuki, Miyuki (2000). A new understanding of Japanese students views on classroom
learning, Independence, 27, 2-6
Wenden, A L (1985). Learner strategies, TESOL Newsletter, 19(5), 1-7
Wenden, A L (1987). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. Wenden &
Joan Rubin (eds), 159-167
Wenden, A L (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. UK: Prentice Hall
Wenden, A L & Joan Rubin (eds) (1987). Learner strategies in language learning.
UK: Prentice Hall
25
Wesche, M (1977). Learning behaviours of successful adult students on intensive
language training. In Henning, C (ed) Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second
Language Research Forum, 355-370. English Department, University of California at
Los Angeles.
Widdowson, H (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Widdowson, H (1991). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Wilkins, D A (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Willing, Ken (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Sydney: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research
Willing, Ken (1989). Teaching how to learn: learning strategies in ESL. Sydney:
National Centre for English Language teaching and Research
Wong Fillmore, Lily (1982). The language learner as an individual: implications of
research in individual differences for the ESL teacher. In Mark A Clarke & Jean
Handscombe (eds) 157-171
Yang, Nae-Dong (1998). An interviewing study of college students’ English learning
strategy use, Studies in English language and literature, 4, 1-11
Yang, Nae-Dong (1999). The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning
strategy use, System, 27, 515-535

reading

How to Make Learning Phonics Fun
Easy Reading Games for Early Education
© ChristaCarol Jones
Nov 22, 2008

Mastering letter recognition and sound is easily done with these phonics games focused on learning to read, and best of all, having fun!

Learning something new, like reading, is a huge step for kids and some can tackle grasping the skill with moderate to severe anxiety or stress. It’s important to keep the learning environment stress free, just like it would be for an adult in her work environment, in order to get the best results and retention of the skill. These games can correspond with any phonics lesson plan or curriculum, or stand-alone for simple fun and pleasure with a focus on learning all about phonics.
Phonics File Folder Games
File Folder Games are just one easy, inexpensive way to provide lots of fun and a magnitude of learning experiences. They’re quick to assemble, and more importantly, kids love them!
Learning Simple Words
With beginners, typically the first focus of words are those with the “–at” and “–an” endings. For example: cat, can, rat, ran, pat, pan and so forth. To create this particular game, locate pictures online of each word you wish to focus on. Choose 5 from each ending, for the sake of room available, or make one file folder for “–at” endings and a separate file folder for “–an” endings.
Cut the pictures out and glue them vertically down each side of the folder (an example picture is at the end of the article). With a ruler and a black marker, draw 3 lines for each letter horizontally next to each picture. Now all you need is a theme! Pick your theme, and use a pattern (for instance, acorns for the fall). Print out enough acorns as there are letters needed. With a black marker, write a letter on each acorn, i.e. “B”, “A”, “T”, based on the words you’ve chosen to focus on.
Once you finish all the steps to complete the file folder game, your child is ready to play. This game isn’t just for phonics, but great for spelling as well.
Rhyming File Folder Game
Following the instructions in the File Folder Game article above, prepare your game and this time use pictures that rhyme. Prepare 2 documents on your PC with rows of pictures to fit each page. Some example pictures are cat, dog, can, ring, pig etc. Choose pictures based on your child’s skill level. Paste these documents on the inside of the folder.
Create 2 more documents of their rhyming pictures: hat, log, man, wing (picture of bird with arrow pointing to wing), dig and so forth. Cut out the pictures of these documents for the finishing steps in the instructions.
These are just two examples of how you can create a File Folder Game to correspond with learning phonics. Use your imagination and come up with other ways for variety and to introduce new ways of fun.
Magnet Fishing Phonics Games
The Magnet Fishing Game is another versatile game that can be made for a specific purpose in teaching your child phonics.
Lowercase and Uppercase Phonics Games
Following the instructions in the Magnet Fishing Game article, choose your patterned theme (fishes, lady bugs, stars, Christmas trees, etc). If you want to do the entire alphabet, you will need 52 patterns, otherwise choose which letters you want to concentrate on.
When you’ve finished creating the game, let your child fish out a pattern and find it’s matching pair by fishing again. As your child’s skill level grows, you can begin to encourage making words with the letters she has fished out.
Beginning Sound Phonics Game
With this game, you either use all 26 letters or focus on specific letters you want your child to concentrate on. For each letter, have a matching picture to past on your pattern that begins with that sound. As an example, you would have a pattern with the letter “S” on it, and it’s match would be a pattern with a picture pasted on it of a Sun. Now your child will fish for pictures that have the beginning sound of the letter he caught.
There are several other ways to nurture your child’s ability to master phonics and reading, including using Poster Pockets. These are just a few examples for you and your child to build on while playing and learning at the same time.

The copyright of the article How to Make Learning Phonics Fun in Kids Educational Activities is owned by ChristaCarol Jones. Permission to republish How to Make Learning Phonics Fun in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.




Phonics File Folder Game

Phonics File Folder Game

Another Phonics Game Example


Most people don't like reading long articles especially not on the internet. Some even want just the gist of the story but that's another extreme too.
So what can you as a writer do?
You can learn how to write to the point so your article does not wander all over the place and is therefore easy to track. That means you must learn how to express yourself in concise language. Writing concisely is a subject by itself and I shall cover that at length in another article.
Here are some tips to help you write clearer:
1) Don't use big words. Very few people are impressed by big words. In fact most people are turned off by such showiness. Why use a big word when a small one would do? For example, why say humongous when you can say huge? Why say opulent when you can say rich? Why say "fraught with danger" when you can say dangerous?
2) Use simple phrases instead of complex ones. You don't want to confuse your readers. For example the phrase " in the realm of the unbelievable " could be simplified to read," unbelievable"
3) You don't have to say the same thing over and over again. You should not describe the same quality in five ways when you can do so in one. For example: just say "he is a generous man" instead of" his works of charity encompass millions given to the poor. He is also the patron of five charities. True the lat two sentences could rightly be used to describe his generosity and in prose it would be good to elaborate. But if you fighting for space as on the internet, keep it simple.
You'd still get the point across.
4) Finally, you can join sentences and then extract their gist and shorten them into one. The trick is to find a commonality among them
5) Always edit what you have written. In this process, cut down on metaphors, synonyms and repetitions.
Some newspapers now use "highlights" to point out the main points of a story. These highlights are placed in a box on the top, sides or bottom of the article.
The purpose is to bring out the gist of the story.
Christopher Chen is a veteran journalist who now edits, writes , proofreads copy for magazines , webpages and organizations.

\


Small school libraries aim to make reading fun and easy
Monday, November 26, 2007
Last updated 12:13 a.m. PT
By JESSICA BLANCHARD
P-I REPORTER
As she sits on the floor of her classroom, flipping through a stack of glossy library books, 7-year-old Jillian
Meisner thinks back to when she learned to read.
"It was kinda hard at first," the Van Asselt Elementary second-grader said, scrunching up her nose at the
memory. "I would look at the pictures and try to guess what the words said."
Now, reading's not only easier -- it's fun, she said, smiling. She holds
up a copy of "The Paper Bag Princess," a damsel-as-rescuer tale she's
borrowed from her classroom library, and proudly announces she can
already read at a third-grade level.
Thanks to new libraries installed in each Seattle kindergarten, first- and
second-grade classroom this fall, Meisner and her peers have instant
access to hundreds of books, each labeled with a letter from A to Z to
indicate its level of difficulty.
The old method of choosing one book for the entire class to read at a
time doesn't work well, because there's often a wide range of reading
abilities among students in a single class, teacher Mary Correa said.
"To find one book that fits all their reading needs is impossible," she said. With classroom libraries where
the books are all carefully divided into categories of difficulty, "it helps me point them to books that are just
right for them."
Educators agree literacy is a key developmental milestone, one critical to students' future academic success -
- if students are struggling to read, they'll likely have trouble with other subjects as well.
To address this, Seattle teachers in recent years have spent extra time on in-class reading, and now students
will have instant access to more books.
The books are ranked based on such criteria as the complexity of the subject matter, words per page,
number of pages and the vocabulary used. Students can choose their own reading material, flip through it to
make sure the book is at their level, then track their choices in a reading log.
By reviewing those logs and meeting one on one with students, teachers can
quickly determine whether a student is struggling, or whether he or she is ready to
move on to the next reading level.
Small school libraries aim to make reading fun and easy 11/27/07 7:42 PM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/341043_reading26.html Page 2 of 3
Mike Kane / P-I
Second-grader Kevin Marin, 7,
is riveted by a book. The
Seattle district lets young
students pick reading material
at their level.
With roughly 600 books for each classroom, there are plenty of titles to choose
from. A district committee reviewed nearly 5,000 before deciding which made the
cut, said Dan Coles, the district's literacy program manager.
The committee opted for a mix of about 60 percent non-fiction titles and 40
percent fiction, Coles said, because students -- especially boys -- "get really
hooked on non-fiction, the vivid colors, the vivid pictures."
Van Asselt second-grader Martin Marroquin agreed. "I like non-fiction books the
best 'cause you get to learn information," he said, looking up from his book,
"Squeaking Bats." He pointed excitedly to a photo of a colony of bats and rattled
off two facts he's learned in the last five minutes: Bats are nocturnal, and "they're
mammals, like us!"
Coles is delighted that Martin has absorbed what he read and has been able to extrapolate it.
While the leveled libraries and extra in-class reading time are designed to help students improve their
reading fluency, he said, it's also critical that students develop strong reading comprehension skills.
The first wave of leveled libraries cost about $1.2 million, and plans are under way to begin selecting books
next month for leveled libraries in third-, fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms.
The libraries aren't intended to replace regular school libraries but complement them. The hope is that
students' interest in reading will be sparked by the classroom libraries and, in turn, circulation at school
libraries will get a boost, Coles said.
In another effort to get students reading, the city and school district have teamed up for the Read a Million
Words campaign.
The idea is to encourage students to read 1 million words during the year, whether it's in a book, newspaper,
magazine or Web site. That works out to reading for roughly 20 minutes every day, according to the
district's Web site.
The campaign ties in perfectly with the district's other literacy initiatives, Coles said.
"It's really a way to wrap in the families and the community and create an excitement around reading."
ON THE WEB
For more information on the Read a Million Words campaign, including a "word calculator," visit
seattleschools.org/area/readamillion/index.dxml.
The Seattle Public Library maintains a collection of online audio books; visit spl.org/default.asp?
pageID=collection_digibooks.
READING TIPS FOR PARENTS
Make real-life connections with the book by talking about things your child has done that are similar to
Small school libraries aim to make reading fun and easy 11/27/07 7:42 PM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/341043_reading26.html Page 3 of 3
those in the book.
Stop your child every few pages and ask him or her to tell you what has been read.
For non-fiction books, have your child share three things he or she learned about the topic.
For more tips, visit seattleschools.org/area/literacy/ENGLISH,Readingaffair.doc.
P-I reporter Jessica Blanchard can be reached at 206-448-8322 or jessicablanchard@seattlepi.com.
© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer